Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys. And in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss this recent run of mass shootings in the United States and consider why this issue of mass shootings is one that the US Just does not seem to be able to get a handle on.
And later on, we're going to take a look at some recent research about how even the sweat part of working up a sweat, not just the working up part, is very beneficial for your health in many ways.
Joining me today is a man who knows that even if we are fed up, we gotta keep our heads up. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to show the people that Tunde cares if don't nobody else care?
[00:01:04] Speaker B: Of course, man. I always care.
[00:01:06] Speaker A: Always. Always.
Now, we're recording this on May 30, 2022. And in this month, May of 2022, we've seen a string of highly publicized mass shooting events occurring all across the United States. The first was on May 14, when a white supremacist shot up a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 and wounding others. The second was the next day, May 15, where a gunman entered and shot up a church having a majority Taiwanese American congregation, killing one and wounding others. And the third was May 24, where a gunman entered elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and killed 19 students and two teachers and wounded others.
So, Tunde, to get us started, what are your thoughts on this run of these highly publicized public shootings and what do you think? The answer, which there was a question that was very poignant asked by the Golden State warriors of the NBA head coach Steve Curry, and he asked blatantly, or asked flatly, when are we going to do something?
[00:02:13] Speaker B: Good question.
You know, what are my thoughts?
This is hard. And I'm a little bit tongue twisted here because I could say I'm sad and, you know, or all the stuff that obviously I think most people felt when hearing this kind of news, especially when it's elementary school kids being killed. But I don't know, you know, it's a sad part. I'm getting kind of numb to it. That's what I kind of realize, honestly. And I don't take mean that lightly or as a joke. I mean, of course it's a terrible tragedy, but, you know, it's not different than many other tragedies we've had, you know, in the last 20 years, let's call it right, with. With a lot of These things. I think it stings more when it's children.
But, you know, look, anyone that has to die because someone showed up and just started shooting everywhere, that's just a sad story. So.
[00:03:02] Speaker A: Well, let me, let me jump in real quick on that, because I agree with you on that, in that not. I wouldn't classify how I feel as numb about it, but just there is like, it's terrible. I process it, but I don't have any hope that we're going to do. We as a country are going to do something about this. Like, I don't, I shouldn't say hope. I don't have any belief that that's going to happen. I hope that it's going to happen. But in terms of the way we've talked about it before, our legislative branch doesn't work in the country. Like, it just doesn't work flat out. And it just, you look at it and it's like, this is a tragedy and we're not going to be able to do anything about it, most likely, or that's the way it appears. And so it's been encouraging to see people push back. But the thing that actually stands out to me about it is that these are attacks, by and large on the public. Like, these are places that everyone goes. And these are not, like, this isn't a beef. Like, somebody is like, oh, this person did this to me, I'm going to go shoot him and his whole crew or something like that. Like, this is like, I want to go randomly shoot people that I don't know because of X reason. And that is, I mean, like I said, that's not.
Everybody takes the risk. You walk out the house or even in your house of you're going to, you know, have a problem with somebody, you know, road rage or, you know, any step on somebody's shoe, if you go into teenager stuff. But, you know, it's really a different thing when it's like, okay, just being here, just being a human being and the public at large is attack. And to me, that's what stands out, is like, we generally, we specifically can say at this point that the public at large in the United States is under attack by random attackers for random reasons. Right. Reasons that have nothing to do with, you know, things that you've done, so to speak.
[00:04:52] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think it's. It's like Americans are under attack by Americans. That's the, that's just the sad part. This is, you know, I think I kind of, as I'm saying it, I'm Thinking of the scenes we thought we only saw overseas, you know, in third World countries where, you know, whether it's a suicide bomber or the way. This is the way people kind of solve their grievances. Right. Just being violent in public places and harming a bunch of innocent people. That didn't used to happen here. Now it does. And, you know, part of me.
[00:05:26] Speaker A: But at least it was still. It wasn't still just totally random.
[00:05:30] Speaker B: Well, this is. Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm saying. This is now a new level of the way, not just these two shootings in the last week, the two I'm speaking of specifically that made more national news coverage are the shooting in Buffalo and the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, here in, you know, May going into June of 2022. So. But what I'm saying is, yeah, 30 years ago, Americans weren't doing this. That's kind of my point where 30 years ago, in other parts of the world, people were still bombing innocent people. I mean, look at the ira, Irish Republican army, for example. That was doing this in England as a way to solve their grievances.
But I would say this, too, as I hear myself saying that. Right. A lot of times those are. As much as I don't agree with their tactics, they're organized groups that have some sort of grievance with said government. This is really random acts of random people. And I think the difference for me, which is kind of like, I don't have an answer that doesn't mean there's not one. I just think it's a series of complex kind of steps that probably need to be taken and probably some simple steps. But if you look at the Buffalo shooting and the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, they're totally different, totally different motivations. The shooting in Buffalo, unfortunately, was a white supremacist kid who specifically targeted black people in a grocery store. It appears the kid in Uvalde, Texas, he shot his grandmother before he got to that school. So this kid was having a different type of episode of just craziness. And what hasn't been talked about as much, but has been talked about is in between these two shootings, which took place eight days apart, there were 14 mass shootings. Mass shooting being defined as where four people are injured or killed, not including the shooter. So that's kind of what makes this, to me a little bit like, okay, I can't see the way out of this because I know all 14 of those shootings probably had different motivations as well.
So part of it is I'm sure that everyone can talk about things like do you let an 18 year old buy 400 rounds of ammunition and long guns a week after his birthday?
And is there a way to slow things like that down?
But also there's something about why are people choosing to behave this way when there's been guns in this country forever in terms of just this being their solution to things. And I think there's just a combination of all of these questions that need to be answered or we won't do anything about it and it'll keep happening. Well, I mean, but that's, that's another.
[00:08:10] Speaker A: That'S, I mean there is a part of this that is just the grieving part, you know, like again, like people have lost loved ones and all that. And then this, like I said, this is an attack on society. So there's a fear involved that, you know, people who are, you know, who remain are like, okay, well this could be anyone. But even you mentioned like the IRA thing, you know, like that still was like they wanted something concrete. Now again, you disagree with their tactics, you might even disagree with what they want, but they had an articulated purpose. Like even if you say the guy in Buffalo with the great replacement theory stuff that they're talking about, that's like a conspiracy type of thing. That's like saying, oh well, you have to turn back over the moon and give us back the moon or else I'm going to shoot up a bunch of people. And it's like, well hold on man, you gotta add like what you want isn't even tethered to reality in a sense. And so the abstract nature, the abstract nature is I think, what binds these and I think what separates them in a way that it's not. Like even if you're talking about the bombings that we've seen other places, those are still oftentimes trying to obtain political ends. Or it's, I have a problem with this person or this like, you know, this village or something like that. And so I'm gonna take that out. And so again that the part about it, to me, the Rand makes it probably more difficult to solve from a big picture standpoint. As you indicated, there's a lot that goes into that. But I think the question that Steve Kerr asked is a very poignant question because he doesn't ask when are we gonna solve this? And a lot of times when people don't have solutions for things, it paralyzes them. Or sometimes people deny problems. That's a brain trick. You Deny a problem if you don't have a solution for it. We see that with climate change a lot.
The solution escapes people, so they den and that happens in your unconscious. That's not a conscious decision you make. But I don't know that we should necessarily start our conversation here looking for solutions. I want to know, like Steve Kerr, when we're going to do something. Like, it doesn't have to be like, this is a multifaceted problem for sure, and there is a lot to look at, a lot to try to understand better. But we can't look to try to hit a grand slam or to try and sit back and wait until we have all of the answers solved and everything. We need to do something. And that's, to me, is the question. And that's where the pressure needs to be put on. Leadership and wherever else in our society, we can put it in order. We have to try. Like, we'll never solve the problem. We'll never walk a mile if we don't take a step. And so to me, that is where we have to get to as quickly as possible. Following this, following the grieving, following the. Trying to understand at least to some degree what's happening or what happened. But do. What are we going to do? We have to do something. All right, we'll take one step. Maybe it only addresses 20% of the problem, but that's 20% that's being unaddressed now because right now we're not doing anything.
[00:11:12] Speaker B: Yeah. I think part of the frustration, though, like when you're saying about addressing 20% of the problem, I think that's the problem. You know, that's the problem, too. The word problem here is, you know, what is the problem? I think that's. That's the problem.
Clearly there is.
[00:11:27] Speaker A: The problem is people are buying guns and shooting people.
[00:11:30] Speaker B: I know. So let me keep going because I get it. The problem is that people are killing people in ways that we haven't seen before. Like you're saying, unattached to anything. People just complicating it.
[00:11:42] Speaker A: You're still over complicating it. Like, the problem is people are buying guns and shooting people. You know, like that's, that's okay.
[00:11:47] Speaker B: So then, so then that's the problem. But then what do we do to address it? Right now you have a country that has in its own constitution the ability of people to bear arms. And then I say, even deeper than anything legal is the culture of guns in the United States. So this is where this is the problem. I see no one's gonna talk to each other, various sides of this debate. Cuz I say various because obviously you could say both sides. But I think there's a huge spectrum of this stuff. Meaning there are people on extremes. There's some people that want to ban all guns and there's some people that want to have zero, zero regulation for, you know, a billionaire could go buy an F16 and arm it if they want. Cause that's the way they think.
[00:12:35] Speaker A: But isn't that part of the problem? Is that why are we even talking about those extremes?
[00:12:38] Speaker B: Like those extremes should be to describe the fact that it exists.
[00:12:42] Speaker A: Okay, no, no, no.
[00:12:42] Speaker B: I mean, so that's why I said the term spectrum. Because I'm saying that in between there, there's a huge swath, probably the majority of the population sits in between in that spectrum. But that spectrum is so complex because you've got issues of people concerned about things like slippery slopes. If you do this, will it lead to that? And I know that people can find that in almost any type of legislation for most topics. But it seems that guns, because it has to do with a lot of things, let's be honest, for men, it has to do with a feeling of masculinity, power, control, safety. There's a lot of things that guns represent for people. And I think that this is one where everybody needs to try and listen to the other side without prejudging them to come to a conclusion. So the people that feel like the second amendment sacred and that any regulation on firearms is kind of is abhorrent, let's say, but see they need to.
[00:13:46] Speaker A: Come in is that we need to stop listening to them. They need to be excluded from the conversation because nobody is saying, for example, okay, I have as much respect for the second amendment as anyone, but I'm.
[00:13:57] Speaker B: Also not coming to a conversation saying I can't listen to people though, because that sounds so good enough. Maybe not. You do.
[00:14:02] Speaker A: The people who. If there are people out there right now who are trying to teach us about astronomy and they start from a place that the world is flat, then you do not listen to those people. Everybody's opinion is not going to be considered. People who are being reasonable people who have measured, thoughtful opinions, you can listen to all of them. But what I'm saying is that part of the problem here is that we try to give the extreme positions equal footing with measured and rational positions. And they're not, they shouldn't be. And so for example, and again, I have an example for this. The second amendment is there in the Constitution. You know what else is in the Constitution? Freedom of speech, the First Amendment. But nobody is out here arguing that we should be able to yell fire in a movie theater, okay? So I don't want to hear about how the Second Amendment means you can't make any restriction on guns, because clearly that's not how it works. The First Amendment is there, and people can make restrictions on certain types of speech that we as a society deem to be incredibly reckless. And so that's all it is. So don't come to me if you're going to have a real conversation, because that's not coming from a place. That's not coming from a realistic place. And so that's all I'm saying. I'm willing to talk to anyone who's willing to come from a realistic place. But ultimately, what you're giving is all the reasons why we can't do anything. And I'm saying that at some point, you have to do something if you're going to address them. If you have to take a step, it doesn't have to be. You didn't have to be. You make some huge, huge step. It doesn't have to be a leap, but it has to be a step. And the problem, a lot of times I think that we have is we want to sit around and analyze every angle of the problem, and then we end up. Don't end up doing anything. And like, look, we have a problem here. Let's try something. And I'm getting it. That's. That's you. You know, like, let's try. You've. You've used that terminology before. Let's try something. Let's see if it works. If it doesn't work, we don't have to be rigid about it. So, I mean, I definitely understand what you're saying that. And I'm not trying to disregard it completely, but I think it's very dangerous to say, oh, we need to listen to these extremes, these people that say we need to ban all guns. Like, no, we don't need to listen to them. They're not people who are really part. Really trying to have a conversation with us. They're coming from a place that is not a reasoned and rational place. That's a place that is not a starting point for a conversation.
[00:16:20] Speaker B: So I'm getting Dennis, the ecosystem that is part of the problem, like with many other topics. Well, I'm not even saying that really giving voice to.
[00:16:29] Speaker A: Amplifying the voice of.
[00:16:31] Speaker B: The voice of some of the more extreme, as if they were mainstream.
Yeah, man, I think, you know, look, I got. No, this is one of those topics where I got kind of no argument in any direction because I don't have an answer, period. I think that, you know, like I've said, you know, clearly guns are something that are deeply ingrained in this country's culture, and I don't think are going anywhere. But clearly, you know, having people do what they've been doing in terms of mass shootings is unacceptable as well. So.
[00:17:03] Speaker A: And I agree with you 100% on both of those points. Like, I don't want to see guns, but we got to do something.
[00:17:08] Speaker B: There's a lot of smart people that are paid a lot of money every year to be thinking about these kind of things. You know, like a hundred of them in the senate and like 500 and change in the Congress.
[00:17:17] Speaker A: They're paid a lot more money from the lobbying industry. So I guess that's where we're. But I don't want to.
[00:17:21] Speaker B: That's a good point, because I think all of them receive more in lobbying compensation than their actual income from a salary. So.
[00:17:29] Speaker A: Well, I'm actually going to. I want to lean into this. Like, how have we gotten to the point. How have we gotten here, to this point where we as a society seem to be unable to address such an obvious problem? You know, like, it's. This is not something. Like, we can't say that this isn't a problem. You know, like, this is something that is. Clearly, it's an obvious problem. Anybody can see it. And we are at a point where, from a. From a dialogue standpoint, from a legislative standpoint, that we just are unable to address this. How did we get here?
[00:18:01] Speaker B: I don't know.
I think it was, you know, look, I think, like many other things, right? It's an advance.
You've got culture mixed in with the advance of technology. So whether it be, you know, us commenting on shows we've done on social media and its influence, or even, like the recent show we did on prohibition and how the technology of distilling spirits, you know, made. Made alcoholic drinks go from, you know, 3 to 9% all the way to 40 to 50%, and it just changed the behavior of those men that were drinking at the time and created all kind of other problems in society. And I think that, you know, you look at the Second Amendment, written December 15, 1791, was the Second Amendment inserted into the Constitution. You know, back then we had muskets. The best guy could literally reload his weapon in 20 to 30 seconds with one shot, which was a musket ball, so which went maybe, you know, 50.
[00:19:07] Speaker A: 80 yards, three shots a minute at best.
[00:19:09] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So we've gone from that to, you know, guns that shoot a thousand rounds a minute or more. And then the other thing too, to mention is not just the firearm itself, but the accessories. So number one, you know, this kid had 30 round clips. Number two, the amount of Kevlar and bulletproof vests and all that, and the helmets. So apparently there were four armed people that couldn't take him out before he was finally taken out. Yeah, so my point is, is that, you know, the, the, the, the gear that he's wearing also gives him more time in the kind of theater of battle, so to speak, to do more harm.
[00:19:50] Speaker A: Because if that knows that going in. Right?
[00:19:52] Speaker B: Yeah. So if that person would have, would have. That first person to shoot would have just taken him out. I mean, I don't know at what point of the killing that was that, but maybe some of the kids would have been saved. So.
[00:20:02] Speaker A: But no, no, no, but you can extend that. And, and if he didn't know, if he knew that the first person he saw with it was armed, that could take him out, he might not have done it in the first place. Yo, you know what, man? If I'm only gonna. I at best can get to two people and then they're gonna shoot me, then maybe that. I don't think that that's worth like. So that changes the calculation across the board. It's a good point, basically.
[00:20:21] Speaker B: Yeah, so that's my point. Like, that's. So what I'm saying is, you know, getting back to the. Answering the question is, you know, part of it, I think is just the increase in technology. Right. The increase of. The better the guns are, they fire more, they fire higher capacity rounds and all that. And then the better the defense of bulletproof vests and all that have become.
[00:20:40] Speaker A: So you're saying. So basically you're saying that the scale and consequence of the problem has ballooned faster than we've really kind of appreciated it.
[00:20:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I think so. I think like many other things in our society. Right. Like, that's all I'm saying. That's why I'm equating it to other things. Then, then, then I think part of it is, you know, there's been legislation that has helped or may not have helped, depending on, I guess, what side of the fence some are sitting on. Right. Which statistics you want to use.
[00:21:09] Speaker A: Which statistics?
[00:21:10] Speaker B: Well, no, I'm just saying like, like the assault weapons ban, for example. No, of course, you know, they were like when we were kids, remember in the 80s, the guns on the street at the time were, you know, the submachine guns that were like Tec Nines, Uzis, Mac Tens, remember those kind of guns. And we don't see them anymore at all. And the reason is because of the assault weapons ban in 94.
And so then the assault weapons ban was removed in 2004. And I would say this, there is a correlation between the type of firearm power that we're seeing on the street, I'll say it that way, and the lifting of the assault weapons ban. And I'm making a very broad statement here because is not just about the mass shootings. The lifting of the assault weapons ban, a lot of people don't talk about this changed the behavior of law enforcement.
[00:22:04] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:22:05] Speaker B: Because it was the first time that law enforcement and to their, you know, their credit, in a sense, like I'm a human being, they're human beings, they're scared of the criminals in a different way now because the criminals are better armed than they are generally when they're.
[00:22:19] Speaker A: Showing up or at least can be.
[00:22:21] Speaker B: Yeah, well, when they're showing up on a regular call. Right. Like so a cop might have a 9 millimeter or a 45 at best in their, in their sidearm, but they may be showing up where A guy's got two fully automatic weapons or a sniper, you know, a 50 cal Barrett sniper rifle. There's, there's just different levels. There's military style weapons on the street now. And so it makes also the job of law enforcement harder and it makes them more on edge, which could also result in some of the altercations we've seen between law enforcement and the community that has nothing to do with mass shootings. So all I'm saying is that the lifting of the assault weapons ban may have created greater negative offshoots in our societal kind of interactions than we are, you know, than just the shootings and.
[00:23:12] Speaker A: Mass, than just the reintroduction of a lot of these military grade, so to speak, types of equipment. And just, just for clarity, the assault weapons ban, you know, like you said 90, it started in 94. It had a built in 10 year sunset provision if it wasn't renewed, basically. So and that was built in at the very beginning. So it wasn't like overturned, so to speak, more so than it was. They just let it expire on that.
[00:23:36] Speaker B: Kind of like they do tax cuts. Is the way, I guess for them to agree.
[00:23:39] Speaker A: Yeah, it's a way like this, but.
[00:23:41] Speaker B: Make sure it expires and I'll vote for it.
[00:23:42] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. I mean, well, no, I'm glad you said that though, because actually it's a way to find a compromise when people need to get together and agree on something. And so to me, when I look at how have we got to this point, I think you raised some valid points, actually.
[00:23:56] Speaker B: Can I say something real quick? And I'm sorry to interrupt, but this shows me the long arp of activism. Because think about the assault weapons ban was up for potential. Maybe it could have been saved in 04 had enough people come out to vote in 2000 where the Florida race wasn't decided by such a small hair.
[00:24:20] Speaker A: 530 something votes.
[00:24:21] Speaker B: Yeah. Had Al Gore been president, maybe there would have been a different response to the sun setting. Maybe there would have been a bigger push to extend it or to do new legislation around it. So all I'm saying is, and I'm not here to pick on George Bush, what I'm saying is the people that are in the street that are all hot and heavy about guns and want to see more regulation elections matter, just like the people that are in the street about Roe versus Wade. And they matter because other things come out than just the person's pretty face on the podium. Legislation, judges, the people that make decisions about these things ongoing for the long run, come out of it. That's, that's.
[00:25:04] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean, like, that's something. I mean like that, that's, that's, that's fine. But I mean, the point I was going to get to actually was more about the idea of like our broken legislative branch. They, they, Congress just doesn't really work anymore to, to try to address the, the needs of society. And we see as a result, supreme courts trying to solve all our problems or the executive branch, the President's doing all these executive orders and so forth, which are band aids at best, to the solution or to, to, to what? Anything. And, but ultimately it really comes at an interesting time because I saw just recently that China is over here, like taunt in a sense, taunting us that the wording is, I don't think that they're, you know, they're not like teasing us like middle schoolers or, you know, something like that, but just that China's out here talking about how democracies are on the decline and that this is going to be the century of autocrats and those are going to be what run the world. And the reason that he's given for this is that democracies require consensus. And that takes time. And that's just not something that the people around the world these days are able to build, whether that's ecosystem, whatever it is. But that consensus is not something that people are able to come to anymore. And I think this is a good example of that, where we are letting whatever passions are running the day or teams that we've signed up for put us in a position as a democracy to not be able to come to a consensus on something, whether it would be, you put something in place, put a sunset provision in like they did in 94, to say, okay, all right, fine, I'm not crazy about this, but. But we, let's do something and then we're gonna. If it works, then they'll renew it in the future, and if it doesn't work, it'll automatically expire. Stuff like that. Like, we need to be able to come to the table and compromise and build consensus amongst people about what needs to happen. The compromise doesn't always have to be. Everybody gets a little bit of what they want. The compromise can be, okay, I get what I want here and we'll talk about what you want over there. Like, there's a lot of ways to compromise. But to me, the reason that we're not able to address this and a lot of other things is that we, I mean, I guess, correctly diagnosed by China, we don't seem to be able to come to consensus on many things. And if we can, the consensus is able to be broken by a very small segment of our population. And that's where we can get into the lobbying. For example, like, there may be, like I've seen study or reports, 70, 80% of people support a full background check for being able to buy a firearm. Why can't we get that? That's a consensus. Why can't we get that in? Well, because the lobbying industry, for, you know, whether it be the gun industry or whatever, is able to break that consensus, even though they represent maybe 20% of the people. And so that may be something wrong with our System that a consent, 80% of people can want something and 20% or a representative maybe of even less than that can say, look, we're going to be able to destroy this consensus because it suits our commercial interests or whatever. So to me, I think there are some structural or systemic issues that are happening with what's happening with our system that seems to be undermining our ability to identify and address problems.
[00:28:35] Speaker B: Yeah, man, it's interesting because as you say that it reminds me of lobbying in general and the concept of kind of paying your way to get what you want. And so, you know, in the end, money talks. And I think the, this is all about just organizing energy to be ended at the end of the day. The problem is, is that the people, you know, the people that are pro gun, let's say, in this country, are much more organized than the, than the anti gun or the regulate gun movement. And so, for example, I'll read you some stats from 2021.
The gun rights group spent 15.8 million in 2021 compared to just 2.9 million in lobbying from gun control groups. And so far in 2022, in the first quarter, which is January through March 31, gun rights group has spent $2 million and gun control groups have only spent $609,000. So at the end of the day, who are the senators gonna listen to?
[00:29:39] Speaker A: I mean, look, or at least enough. That's the thing, is that they can pluck enough to look away from the idea that this is something that's very popular and that there is a consensus on this and say, you know what, we'll block it, we'll hold it up because financially it makes sense for me. So I mean that, to me, that shows you that to your point, better organization can allow you to break consensus that may exist in society and more money. But it's not like they're saying, okay, well, it's 55, 45, come on, man, work with us here. It's like, we want you to take a very unpopular position, but we'll make it worth your while financially and it's working.
[00:30:20] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think that's where a lot of these things, you know, it comes together. And you kind of got to be prepared to hear what I'm going to say.
[00:30:28] Speaker A: Right.
[00:30:28] Speaker B: Like, there's a lot of things that come together. You've identified this. The fact that, you know, we have a representative system which rewards land more than population. So the fact that, you know, California, New York have, you know, probably roughly 30% of this nation's population in terms of numbers of people, but have only four senators combined between both states where north and South Dakota have less than 1 million people combined, so less than 1% of this country's population and have the same four representatives in the Senate. So to your point, you can have much fewer people being represented by the same amount of politicians having an outsized voice in the legislature when it comes to voicing, whether pro or not for regulation of firearms and things around them.
[00:31:26] Speaker A: And so just to piggyback on that as well. And the needs of those states may be vastly. Even though it's much less people. And because it's much less people, the issues may be less pressing there. And so it's easier for you to get a senator there and say, look, man, nobody in your state's really affected by this.
[00:31:45] Speaker B: That's a fair point. Because where you have less density, you probably have less shootings, right? Yeah, just have less people running into each other. Less people. People having issues and arguments.
[00:31:55] Speaker A: Yeah, we mentioned this offline and we were talking about. Was it Mumbai, India? Like, man, I don't know how they. Those people, that population density. What'd you say, 800,000.
[00:32:04] Speaker B: 800,000 per square mile by India. So imagine if each of them had a firearm, what it would look like.
[00:32:11] Speaker A: Imagine if each of them had a baseball bat.
[00:32:15] Speaker B: Yeah, but that's what I'm saying and I think that's why it's, that's why this is complex, because these are all fair additions to the conversation. Let me put it that way. Not even an argument. It's just facts. Right? Like, yeah, it's a fact that almost a third of this country is represented by the same amount of senators as 1% of this country. And it's also fair discussion that, yeah, that 1% has a much different life and relationship to firearms, most likely because they're rural. Then the third, that's in these urban and dense settings and their relationships to firearms and how they feel about it. So, you know, that's why that's the.
[00:32:56] Speaker A: Example for, like, for example, that's an example of a good faith, like, kind of issue that we have to resolve that we'd have to work through. Because. Well, that, that's why being crazy or unreasonable just to point that out.
[00:33:08] Speaker B: Well, that's why I said earlier in this conversation that, you know, for this to actually move at all, people are just going to have to be willing to actually listen to each other and stop coming to these conversations already loaded with their own stuff. And whatever they're coming to, you know, already baked into whatever argument they want to have with someone. They just need to hear someone else's side and reasoning why have a little bit of empathy about it and make a decision. You know, can I see myself compromising on this or that and.
[00:33:38] Speaker A: Or horse trade, be compromise or horse trade, which is still a common, like.
[00:33:42] Speaker B: Hey, okay, that's what I'm saying. Unless you're totally irrational and totally baked in on one of these side, the fringes, which I think is a minority of people, I think the majority of people recognize this as complex and are willing to play the spectrum game and say, okay, I can take a little bit of this if you can give me a little bit of this.
[00:34:03] Speaker A: And that's kind of what I'm saying is that the conversation needs to be amongst those people. And a lot of times I think we allow the 60 or 70% of reasonable people, allow the 2015, 10% on a fringe to kind of guide them or to feel like they have to stay with them and not get in with the people who just want fair and reasonable government and not like, oh, we need to have.
[00:34:29] Speaker B: Well, that's because there's no, what do they call it? Damn, I'm totally losing my saying here. Was that not courage under fire, there's some other saying for great leaders anyway, there's none of that.
[00:34:43] Speaker A: But there's one other thing I want to do before we move off of this and that is, and we had talked about this offline and just the comparison with the firearm industry to the fossil fuel industry and how it evidences this ability for an interest group to be able to prevent, to, to, to block consensus on something where by and large many people can come together and agree on the, the vast majority of the, the major points. And so like we were talking about the, the gun issue, like the specific things that need to be done. I'm open to, to hearing all types of ideas, you know, like I'm, you know, like I don't have, I'm not banging the table for any one thing on that. I just think that we need to start doing something. You know, let's make a step, let's start with something. But ultimately the, the being able to look at it like that, it's amazing to me how like with fossil fuel industry or with the gun industry that they can take, where 60 or 70 or 80% of people will say, yeah, we can try to do this or we can try to be better here, but if it works against their bottom line, then they're able to, to block the consensus on that and block any kind of motion. And I mean, ultimately that gets into the power of money and, and so forth in our political system. But I bring it up here not to even demonize them. I mean, they're playing within the rules of the system of the game, so to speak, but just to point it out as something that, hey, well, if this is not how we want our system to work, then we May need to put an eye on how to avoid this, whether it be the power of antitrust and we can't have too few players in these industries or at least a threat for that. Like, hey, it can't just be five oil, big, big companies here or five, you know, big manufacturers here. Like, we're gonna break you guys up, we're turn you into 25 and then we'll see if you guys are all aligned and all are going to put all your eggs in the basket together again or some of you will then become more reasonable and say, hey, yeah, yeah, we can do this, we can do that. And so ultimately, I mean, I think that's part of diagnosing what the holdup here, what the problem. And so everything needs to be on the table. Again, I'm not coming with the specifics that need to happen more so saying that we need to put some things on the table and we need to try some things and just miss me with all the, the, the extremes, you know, like, I'm not like, let's, let's try something incremental. Let's try to do, let's do something because we can't keep letting these things happen and then we just do nothing.
[00:37:04] Speaker B: Yeah. I think the problem though is that the media ecosystems and where money flows to people unfortunately rewards the extreme voices in our ecosystem. And you know, there was a senator who did a show a couple months ago with a cable news talk host who's well known and famous and not getting into the details, but remember, it was on a different topic. It was about January 6th and the definition of who could be called a terrorist, remember? And the senator came in strong saying, no, those people were terrorists. If I'm going to call other people terrorists. And he was forced to change within 10 seconds his definition of who was allowed to be called a terrorist in this country and who wasn't.
[00:37:47] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:37:47] Speaker B: And I hope that.
[00:37:48] Speaker A: Correct, correct. The host did not allow him to proceed.
[00:37:51] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:37:51] Speaker A: With saying people who engaged in January 6th were terrorists. They like those kind of people can't be terrorists is what the host basically put his foot.
[00:37:59] Speaker B: And so my point is, is that the fact that the senator bent and then agreed, you know, kind of put his head down like the way my chocolate lab does when he's in trouble. And, and, and, and, and basically that's when I knew I was like, all right, the tail's wagging a dog here. The most extreme fringy voices will force the politicians into certain directions. And that's the problem here, is that Right now we don't need the politicians need to have courage and be leaders. And there's two things I'll say here. There's something I read and there's a headline says don't mistake victims of gun violence for experts on gun control. And I thought that's a really good one because we all, as human beings, not all of us, right, they're sociopaths and psychopaths, but say the majority of people do feel empathy for anybody who's lost a family member in this way. And when we see them on TV talking about what should be done and what shouldn't be done, they're not experts. So I think those who would like to see gun control enforced a bit more need to remember that and just continue to look at law enforcement and people that understand firearms and safety and things like that. And then, and then I think the other is, is, you know, those who are so hell bent on, you know, there should be no regulation on guns, anything like that, also need to listen to the conversations because I think a lot of people have mixed up gun rights with like gun commerce, you know, the right to, like you said, James, the right to bear arms.
There's still a definition of that right. Versus should I be able to buy 500 rounds in one shot online or should I be able to buy a Kevlar vest or bump stocks or whatever else accessories that can make these guns more dangerous? My point is, is that that second part I'm saying is about the commerce of guns and the things around guns.
[00:39:56] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:39:56] Speaker B: Versus the actual right of someone to do something. Right. Like I have a right to drive a car, but I have a license and I have to go through some hoops to get one. And then I have to be competent while I have it. Right. Or else I get my license taken away or I get points on my license. So there's other. Just like we have a right to vote unless you're a felon in most many states. Right. I mean there's rights that we have.
[00:40:19] Speaker A: I think that free speech one is the best one to illustrate it though. Like again, like the second Amendment says you have a right to keep and bear arms. The first Amendment says you have the right to, to free speech, but you can be prosecuted for speech if you go into a crowded room and yell fire. And that is because like, so the right to free speech is not endless and the right to bear arms isn't endless. It's up to our legislation. When they did the assault weapons ban in 94, that did not get struck down as violating the Second Amendment. And so all I'm saying with that is that that's. To me, if you're going to fashion yourself as a knowledgeable person and knowledgeable person citing the Constitution, you need to come from a little bit better place of, oh, well, the Second Amendment says you can't do anything like, no, that's not. The second Amendment says. No more so than the First Amendment says that you're allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater and the government can't do anything about it. So we have to come from places. And that can also a lot of times. And that's where people may know a little about something, become very adamant about the little that they know, and not be able to fully explain all of the implications of that and therefore lack the appreciation and the nuance. But that neither here nor there. I do want to move on to our second topic. And the second topic is one that you and I like. You and I always, when we see these workout things, it'd be something that we'll pass back and forth every now and again. Or just health pass back and forth. And this one about sweat was very interesting to me.
But what stood out to you just as far as the health benefits and what's in your sweat and how it works and all that.
[00:41:51] Speaker B: What would.
[00:41:52] Speaker A: What stood out to you in that?
[00:41:55] Speaker B: What's in my sweat? We don't want to know.
Whatever. Especially it's Memorial Day weekend as we're recording this. Whatever toxins, just know that it was healthy because it was rye or wheat based.
[00:42:12] Speaker A: Oh, right. There you go. There you go.
[00:42:16] Speaker B: No, it's interesting. One of the funny things I got, I was telling my wife this, that we have different types of sweat glands around our bodies. So the normal perspiration obviously helps to cool us down. But.
[00:42:31] Speaker A: Yeah. Which is the baseline function of sweating is to cool down.
[00:42:36] Speaker B: Specifically, the glands within our armpits and our crotch, for lack of a eloquent term, secrete certain fats and amino acids that bacteria love to eat.
[00:42:52] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:42:52] Speaker B: And so our body odor is the result of their eating it. So it's kind of them farting is why we stink. I thought that was very interesting.
That was my gem of learning from that was what you got out of there.
I've got crotch bacteria that farts after it eats my sweat.
[00:43:13] Speaker A: That's basically, I was like, okay, turns your sweat or the things in your sweat to smelly stuff.
[00:43:17] Speaker B: But it's funny because it's like each of us have our own BO So it's like there are little. Yeah, it's our combination, our little remoras, like on the shark, you know, like so.
[00:43:28] Speaker A: Well, no, I mean what's ours? And then of course, I mean, I guess if you rub armpits together or more realistically if you rub other parts of your body together, you know, like there can be cross pollination there. But either way, that wasn't where I thought.
[00:43:42] Speaker B: By yourself or with someone else? That's my question.
[00:43:44] Speaker A: With someone else. With someone else.
[00:43:46] Speaker B: Okay, I'm just checking.
[00:43:47] Speaker A: That wasn't where I was, trying to.
[00:43:48] Speaker B: See how acrobatic you were. That's all I thought.
[00:43:52] Speaker A: Now again, it gets into the basics which most people know the basics about sweat. As far as your body sweats in order to cool down, that's one of the ways it maintains. Your body's always maintaining its temperature, you know, somewhere between what, 97, 99 in that range. And it you're doing stuff that you're either moving, you're either in hot, you're in the cold. And so your body has these mechanisms to maintain the temperature. And so. But when you're working out, you'll sweat more. Like you can sweat. Like you were pointing out, those two areas, the underarms and the crotch, those aren't necessarily as directly tied to exercise and moving as far as sweating, like those can sweat at any point, but the moving sweat, like you said, the glands that are all over to cool off. What's fascinating to me about that, not just in terms of it being a way that your body can get rid of toxins and impurities and stuff, but that the better shape, in shape you are, the more fit you are. Not only the more you can sweat, because your body's more efficient at cooling down. It's used to it, it's like, oh yeah, we know what we're about to do here, let's keep cool. Where it's a well oiled machine, so to speak, the sweating stuff, but also that if you're about to work out in your mind, you know you're about to work out or you're doing things or you're about to work out. People whose body are used to working out, your body will start sweating in advance.
Like that just blew my mind. Like what? So your body's like, okay, yeah, it's about to go down, let's get it going. And I mean you think about it, it makes sense. Your body does. I could think of several things that.
[00:45:20] Speaker B: Your body does when you know you're.
[00:45:22] Speaker A: About to do something. I Mean G rated. It can be, you know, your mouth can water when you, when you're holding up a piece of food that you're about to eat. So there. But there are a lot of things your body can do in anticipation of things. So it's just interesting to me that sweat is one of them, you know, because a lot of times where people would identify that more so is like if you get nervous and you start sweating, you know, like people will have more recollection of that. But I've never paid attention to the, the idea of before I work out, I'll. I may start sweating in advance. Like I don't know. But hey, maybe I'm not, maybe my body's not a well oiled machine. Maybe it's not doing it yet.
[00:45:54] Speaker B: Yeah man. No, it's probably well oiled.
It's interesting because one of the things I learned too was it reminding me of how you hear about most people are dehydrated. And seeing this stat is probably true because I know a lot of people don't drink water. But maximum sweat rates for an adult can be up to 2 to 4 liters per hour or 10 to 14 liters per day. So you know, and I'm assuming right, let's you know that's not Idaho in the middle of the winter when you're outside. Right. So but, but for most people that live in a moderate to warmer climate, you know, just walking around during the day, you sweat a lot and you don't realize it. And that's what I mean by a lot of people being dehydrated. That your body needs to cool down this way. We should all just be conscious of replenishing with, you know, water and other good liquids. But the other thing that was interesting because I confirmed it in some of the reading because I went and read a little bit more stuff because I was interested. I always heard that humans are one of the few living creatures that actually sweat. And for anyone that's on a dog or certain other animals, you know that they don't sweat, they pant, they do other things.
So the only two mammals that actually sweat in large amounts in order to cool down because some, some other mammals do sweat but not much at all. They still cool down through other mechanisms. Are humans and horses found that interesting. Really? Yeah. Horses because I thought humans because we generally aren't that hairy. But then that's when I you know, horses, you know, they have fur all around. So, so, so just interesting. I just found that interesting too of why we evolved and horses to do it, but others haven't. And the other thing I found is early humans in some of the things I've learned, like in the plains of Africa, the ability to run and tire out your prey because gazelles and antelopes and certain of those type of animals because they can't sweat. What happens is humans were able to outrun them into having a heat stroke and they would just die. And then, you know, or at least just not be.
[00:48:07] Speaker A: You'd be incapacitate them even though your top speed wasn't high. Yeah, yeah.
[00:48:11] Speaker B: So it's just interesting that the ability to sweat and allowed us to run long distances like marathons, and then that allowed us to survive early on in the hunter gap experience. So, you know, it was an evolutionary adaptation in a sense.
[00:48:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:25] Speaker B: And now someone's got to explain why horses get to do it.
[00:48:30] Speaker A: No, I, I'll say one other thing, just anecdotally why this stood out to me in the first place is because one thing during the pandemic, I started working out outdoors. Like I started, you know, lifting weights even. And you know, like my exercise, I took it from temperature controlled gym to. Initially the gyms were closed, so I put stuff in my garage and started working out in there. And I just used fans. And so. And what I realized at that moment is that I felt better after working out when I sweat a lot because I'm in, you know, we live in South Florida and you know, like, you work out, it doesn't matter how many fans you have, what you're doing, but if you work out outside, it's going to be hot, you're going to sweat. And so when I felt better than I would sweat more than I would in the gym at 68 degrees or whatever, and so I was just like, oh, well, I just kept doing it. But seeing this, you understand why though. You understand why how that's just part of your body cycle and you're getting out the toxins and how it's just good for you in so many ways.
And then I've noticed just when I've been over your house before, you have your workout set up in the garage as well. And it's like, huh, I wonder if tune day is paying.
Is working out knowing that getting that sweat up and everything like that or not if, or if it was just happenstance, but for me, like I said, it was happenstance. But now it's like, okay, yeah, that, that is helping me out in a way that I feel it. But now I know, like for sure what it was.
[00:49:53] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it's interesting, man. The, the. I don't have much more on this topic. It's just funny because I also was thinking as we were reading, like, it's funny how sweat is such a natural part of us as human beings being alive. But it's, it's one of the main things that we spend so much time trying to cover up. You know what I mean? No, seriously, like deodorant, body odor, perfume, all that. And then, you know, like you say we live in South Florida, you know, in the summer it's hot, you go take out the trash, you're sweating, you're trying to immediately go back in some air conditioned situation. And I'm not complaining about it. I just find it interesting that something that is such a big part of our us and that we can't stop, you know, were constantly trying to stop. And it also got me thinking that I wonder, really, and this is going to sound funny, but I mean it seriously, like, what it must have been like to be Alive more than 100 years ago when everybody just smelled natural. You know, like, think about, just especially, I mean, we talk about like the part one of today's show. We talk about rural versus urban, right? Yeah, it's one thing if you're rural, but imagine being like in New York City or something in 1880 or some year just hot in the summer or Chicago and everybody's in buildings and they're all just sweating indoors.
[00:51:10] Speaker A: Well, see, but that's part of the thing though is that these urban places, like, they got more populated as technology got better to be able to keep people cool in smaller spaces. Though, like Florida's the south. Florida is the extreme of that. Like South Florida is an outpost until really air conditioning becomes.
[00:51:28] Speaker B: Yeah, until like the 1940s or 50s.
[00:51:30] Speaker A: Until air conditioning becomes something that is easily readily attainable. It was like very few people living down here, unless you're like Key west where it's just a breeze all the time. But like, even those big cities, like those cities are growing, you know, leaps and bounds once you start getting electricity. Like, you might not have air conditioning, but you have fans and stuff like that once you have electricity. So it wasn't just a, like they weren't 20 million people in metro New York City at that time, you know, like. So. But yeah, I definitely. It's interesting that the familiarity, I can say that our ancestors 100, 200, whatever years ago would have had with everybody's odor because I'm sure we can recognize People by sight. People probably could recognize people by smell.
[00:52:16] Speaker B: That's what I was just going to say. We did a show recently that talked about how people, like females can smell different things than men. And they can. They, like female humans, can smell if a man is healthy or not. And all that under natural circumstances. Now, I don't know if men and women are.
[00:52:36] Speaker A: I think from that this is happening in the unconscious part of their minds, though. It's not like they smell like, oh, he smells.
[00:52:42] Speaker B: But remember, I was joking about how it probably messed up the last hundred years or so, messed up all human kind of evolution and reproduction, because I'm sure subconsciously women use that to suss out which men were strong, which one were weak from a genetic standpoint for appropriation. And with all this deodorant and all that, women, you know, men can potentially fool full women, you know, putting some nice.
[00:53:04] Speaker A: You know, it gave the weak genetic man a chance.
[00:53:07] Speaker B: Yeah, what was that one when we were teenagers? Drakkar Noir. That. That nice perfume?
[00:53:14] Speaker A: Nah, but I think we can wrap it from there, man. That's. But that's a good point, though. It's a good point.
[00:53:18] Speaker B: I mean, eau de toilette, you know.
[00:53:20] Speaker A: Turn the world upside down, so. But yeah, we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast, Rate it, review us, tell us what you think, send it to a friend, and until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:53:33] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Walana.
[00:53:35] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
